RUSSIA’S surprise “velvet invasion” of Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula has detonated into a dizzying debate, full of claims, threats and comparisons.

The very fact that President Vladimir Putin’s critics accuse him of acting like World War Two tyrant Adolf Hitler, while his supporters use the same invective against Kiev’s government — calling them “Neo-Nazis” and fascists — sums up the messy war of words.

Comparisons to Hitler and the Nazi’s are being fired off on both sides: Russia invaded Crimea to protect ethnic Russians from “Neo-Nazis”; President Putin is adopting Germany’s excuses for invasion from the 1930s.

But it does seem to be all about Putin.

The US intelligence community is blaming this invasion — the second time they got Putin wrong — on the President’s “impulsive” character.

“I think the Russian steps came as a surprise,’’ said US Intelligence Committee member Adam B. Schiff. “I think in part it comes from trying to predict a fairly unpredictable Vladimir Putin.”

They didn’t see the 2008 invasion of Georgia coming either.

President Putin has gone unpunished for that crime.

Perhaps his greatest similarity with Hitler is the West’s capacity to misjudge him.

Given this, who is the new “appeaser” — the role played by Britain’s Prime Minister Neville Chaimberlain before World War II?

Once again, Britain has been keen to play down any problems.

Russia has strong economic ties with the island nation, and many of its richest are regular visitors to their high-priced pads in London.

So it is with little surprise that a diplomatic briefing note, photographed earlier this week on its way to be delivered to Prime Minister David Cameron, appeared to strongly oppose any real response to Russia’s bold move.

The United States, including President Obama, also appears to have been engaged in an exercise of self-deception since the Iron Curtain fell in 1991. Russia had, in its eyes, become a “responsible partner” in world affairs. As such, doors have been opened for it to join key clubs such as the Group of Eight economic forum.

Clearly President Putin doesn’t see it quite that way.

Former US National Security Council director Damon Wilson says US analysts have Russia wrong.

“We get used to outrageous Russian behaviour and we come to accept that as normal and we end up tolerating it,” he said. “We had plenty of warnings in 2008 that Russia would provoke a confrontation with Georgia and end up invading, but we still didn’t think he’d actually do it.”

Unidentified ... one Russian soldier among several hundred not displaying any identifyingSource:Getty Images

WILL RUSSIA INVADE UKRAINE BEYOND CRIMEA?

The chances of this seem to be decreasing, particularly as it is now several days after the surprise nonviolent takeover of the Crimean peninsula. Loyal elements of Ukraine’s army are now mobilised and the whole world is on the alert, watching.

Despite Russia’s massive paper strength, it is already committed to suppressing separatists on several fronts. It may not have the necessary “overwhelming force” to spare for a guaranteed victory in an armed conflict with Ukraine.

It has only so many fingers to plug all the holes in its outlying states.

Matthew Clements, from Jane’s Intelligence Review, said Ukraine could not be compared to another former Soviet state, Georgia, which Russian forces swiftly invaded in 2008.

“It is a much larger military that Ukraine is wielding here. And it would certainly create a military challenge for Russia to face that,” he said.

The true strength of Ukraine’s military forces are unknown, even to the government. A true shooting war will be the final test of their loyalties. Nominally it has 130,000 military personnel, about 10 warships and a handful of fighter aircraft. Some of these have been trapped or seized in Crimea.

Russia’s presence in Crimea includes between 6,000 and 16,000 troops, depending on your source. Russia has 30 warships and 90 fighter aircraft in the region, along with several mechanised infantry divisions still on its side of its border.

The time of year is wrong for tanks: As Germany and Napoleon learned the hard way, mud kills movement. With the whole region awash, a serious ground attack would need to wait until June.

Besides, Russia has probably already achieved its objectives.

Holding the Crimean peninsula gives it control over a vital naval base for the Black Sea — something it recently only held a lease over. It’s also a favourite Russian tourist location — from the time of the Tsars through to Putin’s modern adventure holidays.

Most of the Russian troops brought into the Crimea are surrounding key military and civilian installations to gain control. They are not deployed on the border with the remainder of Ukraine.

But there is still some cause for concern: The Russian parliament authorised the use of military force in Ukraine — not just the Crimea.

A statement from President Putin’s office earlier this week read: “In the case of any further spread of violence to Eastern Ukraine and Crimea … Russia retains the right to protect its interests and the Russian-speaking population of those areas.”

It’s another of the parallels being drawn between President Putin and Hitler — the adoption of the excuse “we’re defending Russian-speaking people” when it comes to invading another nation. Defending German speakers was the spiel wheeled out by the Nazi Party when it crossed into surrounding countries in the late 1930s.

While President Putin has now claimed several times that ethnic Russian lives had been threatened, he has not put forward any evidence to substantiate it.

In fact, the opposite may well be true. The issue of Russian protection has been raised several times during the uprising of the past 12 months. Apart from the inevitable extremists, most Russian-speaking Ukrainian nationals appear to have rejected the notion of being victims.

It’s a position Russia’s own Human Rights Council recognised.

On March 2 it reported there “were no victims and wounded among the civilian population and soldiers” in the Crimea as a result of the uprising.

Nevertheless, President Putin used this line in his appeal to the Russian Parliament for permission to use armed force in Ukraine: “In connection with the extraordinary situation that has developed in Ukraine and the threat to citizens of the Russian Federation, our compatriots … I hereby appeal to the Council of Federation of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation to use the armed forces of the Russian Federation on the territory of Ukraine until the social and political situation in that country is normalised.“

Heated issue ... a protester sets light to a portrait of former Ukrainian President ViktoSource:AP

PROTECTING THE ‘VALID’ PRESIDENT

With the weakness of the “protecting Russian people” argument, President Putin has since changed his emphasis to “restoring the legitimate Ukrainian government”.

This sounds valid: Viktor Yanukovich did appear to win recent elections in Ukraine.

But the former president was dismissed by his own political party after losing any sense of legitimacy through his economic mismanagement and corruption, and the excessive force used to quell demonstrations against his rule.

Yanukovich fled his opulent palace in Kiev on February 22 once it became clear he had lost all remaining support, even among his most trusted political allies.

Actually, the current government is actually pretty much exactly the same as the previous government.

Deposed president Yanukovych was dumped by his own party because of his excesses and corruption. The current interim president and prime minister are both former cabinet ministers.

Acting President Alexander Turchynov — previously speaker of the parliament — was appointed to his temporary post on February 23. His acting prime minister — Arsenic Yatsenyuk — was a leader of the opposition movement.

Many of the remaining key ministers remain the same.

What the new government suffers is lack of discretion, not lack of experience.

Columbia University professor Timothy Frye, an expert on post-Soviet foreign policy, told media that “their ability to make bureaucracy function is pretty limited … They’re primarily caretakers until presidential elections can be held in May”.

The most popular candidate for that election, it appears, is former heavyweight boxing champion Vitali Klitschko.

As for being Neo-Nazi ultranationalists: This oft-repeated Russian justification seems highly unlikely given many of the Ukrainian government’s members are Jewish — including Prime Minister Yatsenyuk.

No more so than many other democracies. The demographic charts being used to define Russian-speaking and past-president-supporting regions say no more about a widespread desire to cede from Ukraine than, say, having a Labor Government in an Australian state means it desires to part from the Liberal-run Commonwealth of Australia.

And being a Russian speaker does not mean they want to be Russian: Most of the interim Ukrainian cabinet speak Russian, for example.

Only a referendum could determine such resolve.

Demonstration turnouts can offer a clue.

Protests overnight in the Eastern Ukraine city of Donetsk attracted around 2000 pro-Russian activists. At the rival demonstration for the territorial integrity of Ukraine, around 10,000 people took part.

But Russia has been the dominant power in Ukraine for the past 200 years after it first annexed the area in 1783. It has since undergone a degree of “ethnic cleansing” with the Muslim Crimean Tartars deported after 1944 in retaliation for supporting Nazi invaders.

Some have since returned: Crimea itself is now made up of 24 per cent ethnic Ukrainians, 58 per cent ethnic Russians and 12 per cent Tartars.

Russia’s invasion is in breach of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances.

What makes this treaty more important than any other?

That assurance — in exchange for the surrender of all Soviet-era nuclear weapons — guaranteed Ukraine the protection of its territorial integrity. This was signed by the United States, the United Kingdom … and Russia.

Russia has breached the deal.

The West, so far, has enacted very little to enforce it.

Nuclear-armed nations now have little cause to believe surrendering their weapons will have little effect beyond making them weaker.

Weeks after she was released from jail, 53-year-old former prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko said the West should not make any compromises to appease Russia.

“We believe that the aggressor must leave without any conditions,’’ Tymoshenko said.

The West must do “everything that will stop the aggressor. Period,’’ she said.

Old guard ... a Russian Communist holds up a portrait of former Soviet dictator Josef StaSource:AFP

HAS PUTIN HAS WON THIS ROUND?

Perhaps. Perhaps not. This may be a much more costly “victory” for Russia than is immediately apparent. It is a high-risk move invading a country. And Putin only took that action as he had lost his influence over Ukraine’s parliament.

Russia had to spend big to defend the plummeting rouble earlier this week. And cash reserves are not infinite — even before sanctions begin to bite. Most of Putin’s powerbase is among Russia’s “new rich”. These have much of their cash stashed overseas — particularly in London, which may explain why the UK is so reluctant to engage in economic sanctions.

But economic sanctions will only hurt if they are widespread.

The United States, which is threatening sanctions, has very little trade with Russia.

Europe, however, has significant economic links — which may be why nations such as Germany and the Netherlands are so far refusing to support sanctions as retaliation for the invasion.

Putin knows this. He clearly believes the US no longer has enough influence in Europe to change their minds.